Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

The original Japanese kind of implies that the two things are in contrast to each other, so I would pick the meanings accordingly.

Thank you a lot!

And does 'blade' can have some other meaning in Japanese?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Actually, I think there was a hint for poisoning, now that you mention it. Rosa had a bottle of sleeping pills for Maria, but she found it unexpectedly empty a little while before she was killed. They were for use on children, but if you used a lot of them, and the victims were already on the verge of crashing to begin with (which Krauss and Natsuhi definitely were) then they would probably do the job nicely. So I think that's a viable method of taking them both out.

Oh, that's interesting. I've forgotten about the sleeping pills!
So I guess Krauss and Natsuhi were drugged before being killed... this make possible for Yasu to kill them...

Quote:

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

The problem after that is how to dispose of the bodies. Yasu has a way to coerce them outside before killing them, but for this theory Eva would need to carry the bodies herself, and she'd have to do them one at a time. There would be a pretty big risk of one of the cousins coming downstairs and finding a corpse.

Yes, I don't really think Eva would do it, and if Rosa was still alive when she found the bottle empty and it was Eva the culprit, this would mean Eva had already decided to kill people before murdering Rosa, which would kill the incident theory.

No, I think Eva and Eva Beatrice served as red herrings for this game... though it's possible maybe they were culprit in Toya's book.

I've always had the feeling Toya's books were similar and yet different from the games otherwise either no one had ever solved them or Ange would have asked why in them the culprit was Shannon and if that was the truth Hachijo found...

Unless Toya's books were unsolvable so no one could figure who was the culprit.

I thought that this was established early on that whoever the culprit was, the murders followed the epitaph for this very reason: To create the illusion that it is a witch carrying out these murders. Is there a reason this came up?

The epitaph murders/"murders" are a pattern. It's difficult to recognize a pattern before there's a pattern in place to be recognized. Beatrice has no way to force people to draw from the circumstantial evidence she presents the notion that she'll be killing according to an epitaph pattern, but the survivors seem to catch on remarkably quickly. Unless, of course, she's got a plant in there that she's instructed to raise the idea so that everybody quickly accepts it and begins to behave accordingly.

Actually... interesting line of inquiry: Who is the first person to raise Beatrice's intended interpretation of the epitaph in each episode?

The epitaph murders/"murders" are a pattern. It's difficult to recognize a pattern before there's a pattern in place to be recognized.

I get it. In the first Episode, no one catches on until after the 5th twilight. Also "epitaph murders" don't really get mentioned outside. Even in EP4, it's difficult to tell where those stakes are supposed to be in, or if the culprit even tried. You're right, and it does seem a bit strange.

Quote:

Beatrice has no way to force people to draw from the circumstantial evidence she presents the notion that she'll be killing according to an epitaph pattern, but the survivors seem to catch on remarkably quickly. Unless, of course, she's got a plant in there that she's instructed to raise the idea so that everybody quickly accepts it and begins to behave accordingly.

Not quite. I mean the use of magic circles and strange demonic stakes would put anyone into "occult" and there's only a few people people connected to it: Maria, Kinzo, and the witch. Wait a minute... Kinzo and the witch. Whoa, now these people are being gouged in the head, in the chest! No way! It may be able to catch on by around the fourth twilight. However that doesn't mean that people who are actually seeing dead bodies may be able to think that straight.

Which does lead into...

Quote:

Actually... interesting line of inquiry: Who is the first person to raise Beatrice's intended interpretation of the epitaph in each episode?

I think the means of murder of any given arc is relatively vague.
The stakes are at least in most case decoration put after the death. FT in arc 1 is after-damage (at least according to what we can get from it) and FT in arc 2 couldnt have been the means of murder.

Its also more or less a given that most peoples death arent nearly as spectacular as the found corpses seems to suggest.

On one hand the culprit is trying to make you believe its a witch who did it, sure, but s/he also made it so its possible to understand this is all fiction/a show (hell Battler makes a lot of comments about fiction in arc 1 itself).

Arc 3 is mostly different in that many of the murders arent disguised as such.
For instance Rosa/Maria's death is opposed to making one believe it was a witch: rather the culprit seems to be going for the "perfect crime" idea where it could be arguably considered an accident (tho a messed up one).
The who dunnit doesnt really involve a witch in the possibilities in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renall

Actually... interesting line of inquiry: Who is the first person to raise Beatrice's intended interpretation of the epitaph in each episode?

"Uuuuuu it was the _____ of the ____" isnt it?
Tho to be fair I think Kanon and Shannon always make references to Beatrice/Kinzo's game pretty early on too.

Well, technically not even Beato used all the red she could have used against Battler... and also EP 3 also aim to lead us to suspect about Eva.

Eh, I moreso thought EP3 was to provide Meta-Battler the tools to stop being so hopelessly incompetent, while providing a somewhat obvious culprit who wasn't Yasu (even the intro blurb states it's intended to be easier than EP2). And ... I dunno, regardless of who was "really" in control on Ep 3 as a game, Evatrice just didn't seem to share Beato's concern about Battler winning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Yes but if they aren't anymore the culprits for all the murders apart for Nanjo's and maybe George her role becomes really small. They don't even need to place the stakes as this could have been done by Eva.

A matter of opinion, I guess. She also has the six First Twilight victims, and MAYBE some hand in Kyrolf/Yoshi, too. I only really accuse Eva of killing 4 people in Banquet, which isn't that many. Well, relatively speaking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

And, to be completly honest, I would have liked an EP 3 with Eva as culprit but I couldn't find a solution that would fit with Yasu's message.

Random thought in addition to what I already said about that - the parallel between Eva and Shannon both having their witch side, which is born of their more juvenile dreams, causes unintentional tragedy, could be what you're looking for, and Banquet also presents the largest roles for the extremely telling characters of Virgilia and Ronove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I've considered this. However, as odd as it is, either Toya's banquet and EP 3 Banquet are different or Ep 3 (and EP 4) must be constructed to serve in order to deliver Beatrice's message.

If not they're mere forgeries.

See, this is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, Tohya's Banquet and EP3 Banquet almost HAVE to be a bit different, because EP3 Banquet blurs the line between the gameboard and the Meta (which I'm like 99.99% certain aren't in the forgeries) fairly often, like Evatrice's assault on Beato's heart only being stopped by Meta-Battler's timely interruption.

Secondly, Tohya's Banquet IS a mere forgery. It's just a forgery that the readers decided felt really really really similar to the first two, like it had more legitimacy to it, and Hachijou Tohya gained notoriety for seemingly having the same truth at it's core as Yasu's own work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

This imply a Yasu culprit theory for Nanjo's murder. But then why Yasu would kill Nanjo/Toya would have Yasu kill Nanjo if Toya was going for a Eva culprit theory and Yasu decided to stop her plan because Eva solved the epitaph?

I dunno what plan you think Eva had, or what Yasu was going to do to stop it ... honestly, though I don't like brushing things off like this ... alot of the 9th Twilight stuff is fairly inexplicable, from a "rational behavior" standpoint. There's no real reason to kill Nanjo in EP3, Natsuhi in EP1, or Maria in EP4, as far as one can tell. The best I can offer is that "Eva is the culprit!" was an idea, but obviously not the ENTIRE thing EP3 was based on.

Also, I don't see a problem in killing Kratsuhi at the same time. Well, I mean, not literally at the same exact moment, but let's not forget that the adults NEVER slept at any point in Banquet, and as far as I can tell, both Krauss and Natsuhi are, like, 50, or just over that age. If Eva wants to kill them, but not alert the kids with a flurry of gunshots, she only needs to catch them dozing off, or invit Krauss (the armed one) to discuss something in the hall, or just outside, and catch him from behind.

Secondly, Tohya's Banquet IS a mere forgery. It's just a forgery that the readers decided felt really really really similar to the first two, like it had more legitimacy to it, and Hachijou Tohya gained notoriety for seemingly having the same truth at it's core as Yasu's own work.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't jump into a conversation half-way, but aren't we told several times to believe in the author? When the author spent so much time saying that Tohya's forgeries had reached the truth of Yasu's games, doesn't doubting that go against what we've been taught to do from the start? We've been told that they do have the truth in them, and we shouldn't doubt that.

Stuff like not doubting the red, Ange believing in Tohya's forgeries and even the saying "Without love, it cannot be seen" all encourage you to believe in the author of the story and not to doubt what he says at every turn. Hell, that's even what Will and Dlanor's commandments are based around.

Firstly, Tohya's Banquet and EP3 Banquet almost HAVE to be a bit different, because EP3 Banquet blurs the line between the gameboard and the Meta (which I'm like 99.99% certain aren't in the forgeries)

This is something I've wondered about, and I believe Meta is a part of the forgeries; Yasu's message bottles and Tohya's forgeries are exactly as we see them as Episodes. Mostly because even Ange's scenes are discussed as a part of the game and forgeries in the story, and they also talk about "red ink"- Red Truth is really only a Meta thing. With this, it can mean that even Ange's reunion with Tohya in EP8 is only a forgery, or there's still Kakera theory that presides over Author/Prime (or a higher Author). If Beatrice's wish was for Battler to realize her heart, this is something that is mostly present in Meta, so it would have to be present in Yasu's bottles. I'm certain that Yasu's bottles called "Legend" and "Turn" are exactly as we read them, meta and all. This also applies to Tohya's forgeries EP3-6.

This is something I've wondered about, and I believe Meta is a part of the forgeries; Yasu's message bottles and Tohya's forgeries are exactly as we see them as Episodes. Mostly because even Ange's scenes are discussed as a part of the game and forgeries in the story, and they also talk about "red ink"- Red Truth is really only a Meta thing. With this, it can mean that even Ange's reunion with Tohya in EP8 is only a forgery, or there's still Kakera theory that presides over Author/Prime (or a higher Author). If Beatrice's wish was for Battler to realize her heart, this is something that is mostly present in Meta, so it would have to be present in Yasu's bottles. I'm certain that Yasu's bottles called "Legend" and "Turn" are exactly as we read them, meta and all. This also applies to Tohya's forgeries EP3-6.

It was said that Banquet includes Eva's escape to Kuwadorian, but we never saw that. So either the authors are stupid for such a plothole, or your theory is wrong.

Not quite. I mean the use of magic circles and strange demonic stakes would put anyone into "occult"

Also, all of Beatrice's first letters of EPs 1, 2, & 3 draw attention to the epitaph as the centerpiece of her "game", so when killings start it's pretty natural for people to see a connection between the epitaph and the murders even without a plant there to guide them.

This is something I've wondered about, and I believe Meta is a part of the forgeries; Yasu's message bottles and Tohya's forgeries are exactly as we see them as Episodes. Mostly because even Ange's scenes are discussed as a part of the game and forgeries in the story, and they also talk about "red ink"- Red Truth is really only a Meta thing. With this, it can mean that even Ange's reunion with Tohya in EP8 is only a forgery, or there's still Kakera theory that presides over Author/Prime (or a higher Author). If Beatrice's wish was for Battler to realize her heart, this is something that is mostly present in Meta, so it would have to be present in Yasu's bottles. I'm certain that Yasu's bottles called "Legend" and "Turn" are exactly as we read them, meta and all. This also applies to Tohya's forgeries EP3-6.

There are a number of rather extreme problems with the notion of including meta, however. Big ones. Among them:

Why isn't it in Legend?

Why should we believe in a human culprit when the story tells us there exist these meta-beings?

Why doesn't anyone in Ange's 1998 (whether that itself is a forgery or not) make any mention of characters like Bernkastel?

What is the significance of things like the Witch Senate if the meta-narrative exists within the text?

What's the point of the fantasy scenes if Meta-Battler is just going to rip on them within the narrative itself?

Why is there a distinction between the Beatrice on trial in ep5 and Meta-Beatrice?

Why is Turn being "paused" at times?

Why do End and Dawn end their board narratives abruptly? Wouldn't Witch Hunters want to know the rest? For that matter, what exactly are Requiem and Twilight, if their text is exactly as we read it?

How could nobody have figured out the depths of the stories with all that meta-information thrown in their face? Especially the red text, which provides a massive limiting factor on available speculation.

Does the Love Duel exist in the text of Dawn? Does Erika react to it? How the hell would any readers have responded to that sort of inclusion?

How exactly do the forgeries being in chronological order (the meta-narrative necessitates this) jive with the notion that Witch Hunters were writing other forgeries, not just HT? What if somebody writes a spinoff of his forgery after his Alliance, and how would anyone decide which meta-narratives are "correct" as a collective? Are there whole other meta-spinoffs we've never seen? Why aren't they regarded as being as close? If Land was a "lost" narrative, shouldn't there be a gap in the meta-narrative where Land's meta-narrative was meant to go?

Why doesn't Our Confession feature Beatrice brainstorming the meta-narrative? She thinks up both the board and fantasy plot, but nothing about the meta-world shenanigans that will result from it.

No doubt there are other issues, I've just forgotten most of them. I wound generally say that, at best, the fantasy narrative is present. At worst, I'd say we're missing huge chunks of most of the original texts. Legend is a major problem for containing no magic elements, yet it's so sparse on meta-elements that it almost seems like it could be very close to an "original" message bottle. If Legend and Turn are the bottle stories - and we don't know that they are, but we're led to believe it - they are very different in presentation.

[*]Why doesn't Our Confession feature Beatrice brainstorming the meta-narrative? She thinks up both the board and fantasy plot, but nothing about the meta-world shenanigans that will result from it.

She does plan out when to have meta-world logic battles and what red truth she'll use. That doesn't mean the meta-narrative is in the forgeries, but the author was clearly anticipating a meta-level interaction with an opponent, even if that was just Ikuko and Tohya arguing with each other in the real world.

__________________

"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."

Author theory. I didn't completely deny the existence of the author, just that there's something possibly even above this. The Meta in Turn, and in Tohya's forgeries were meant to be read alongside the bottle of Legend.

Quote:

Why should we believe in a human culprit when the story tells us there exist these meta-beings?

Good point. I think because that was the point of Yasu's bottles.

Quote:

Why doesn't anyone in Ange's 1998 (whether that itself is a forgery or not) make any mention of characters like Bernkastel?

Let's reread those Tea Parties Also, if Bernkastel is of a being of a "higher plane", than it doesn't make sense for any of them to mention her.

Quote:

What is the significance of things like the Witch Senate if the meta-narrative exists within the text?

It's called World Building, giving opponents to Yasu's heart some substance. I seem to remember what Maria likes saying about giving things names when I think about this.

Quote:

What's the point of the fantasy scenes if Meta-Battler is just going to rip on them within the narrative itself?

See point 2. That's the point.

Quote:

Why is there a distinction between the Beatrice on trial in ep5 and Meta-Beatrice?

Because Author theory. Beatrice on the gameboard/trial is Natsuhi's illusion, but Meta-Beatrice is Yasu's heart.

Quote:

Why is Turn being "paused" at times?

You mean the Meta parts and stuff? I feel like I'm repeating the same thing here.

Quote:

Why do End and Dawn end their board narratives abruptly? Wouldn't Witch Hunters want to know the rest? For that matter, what exactly are Requiem and Twilight, if their text is exactly as we read it?

I'm still working this out. But End and Dawn are Tohya's forgeries. They're making money on it, dramatic effect? Remember who the author is for this. It's Tohya trying to deal with the fragmented memories of Battler, not someone who is merely writing down forgeries for the Witch Hunter's studies. Requiem and Twilight, I'm still not sure, as there is no mention of these ever actually being written. This supports the fact that there may in fact be Kakera stuff happening above the author theory.

Quote:

How could nobody have figured out the depths of the stories with all that meta-information thrown in their face? Especially the red text, which provides a massive limiting factor on available speculation.

Were you able to discover the answer after Turn? No? Hmm...

Quote:

Does the Love Duel exist in the text of Dawn? Does Erika react to it? How the hell would any readers have responded to that sort of inclusion?

How did you respond? Maybe you're missing the point? I don't know what Erika has to do with it. She's a fictional character on any level. If the author wants to keep her on a certain level of meta, she will stay there.

Quote:

How exactly do the forgeries being in chronological order (the meta-narrative necessitates this) jive with the notion that Witch Hunters were writing other forgeries, not just HT? What if somebody writes a spinoff of his forgery after his Alliance, and how would anyone decide which meta-narratives are "correct" as a collective? Are there whole other meta-spinoffs we've never seen? Why aren't they regarded as being as close? If Land was a "lost" narrative, shouldn't there be a gap in the meta-narrative where Land's meta-narrative was meant to go?

This is a good point, one that I haven't completely thought through. How did they decide? Tohya may have started with the first forgeries, possibly even believed it to be another true message bottle text. The serious Witch Hunters turn to him for their studies. But at the same time, remember that these are supposed to be the memories of someone who was actually there (hidden deep inside them somewhere) I'm still stuck on the Land. But... in EP8, we see Beatrice saying that Land was her bottle. Banquet is Tohya's. Tohya picks up the Meta-Narrative where Yasu left off- or where Yasu was thought to have left off. If Land is found, its Meta-Narrative will differ, but it doesn't matter because it was never found, and Banquet was written for the purpose of picking up where Turn left off.
I still don't have an answer for what EP7-8 are. I still like the fact that maybe there's Kakera theory even above it.

Quote:

Why doesn't Our Confession feature Beatrice brainstorming the meta-narrative? She thinks up both the board and fantasy plot, but nothing about the meta-world shenanigans that will result from it.

I haven't read Our Confession. But is the Beatrice arguing with Battler and creating the game ever said "well, if I make this move, Battler will say..." Oh wait. There's different levels to Meta. If it's just Beatrice setting up the game, then it doesn't matter.

Here is the reason why I think it makes sense for Author Theory to include Meta. (Note: I use females for Yasu for no particular reason.)

Each Episode (at least 1-6) are either Yasu's or Tohya's forgeries. Yasu writes three bottles, in which she "confesses". She wants Battler to understand her heart, so she writes a love story. She writes a story in which she confesses her love to Battler, and he realizes the mistake that he made, and they discuss murder mysteries the same way they used to. The third bottle is never found.

Tohya remembers. He remember what Yasu was trying to tell him. He starts writing the forgeries, continuing on Yasu's story where Turn left off. He remembers Ange, and the pain of guilt he feels when he denies her visiting. Tohya continues Yasu's story, but also the story of Ange trying to come to terms with what happened October. The Meta we see is all a part of the narrative.

I don't quite understand why you're so focused on what the Witch-Hunters see. As far as I'm concerned, the Witch Hunters probably did study other forgeries. If you want me to give an explanation they chose Tohya's because Tohya continues the story where Yasu left off: the heart of the story. But since even that is a part of Tohya's forgeries...

Quote:

If Legend and Turn are the bottle stories - and we don't know that they are, but we're led to believe it

It is said outright. That's why I started wondering about this in the first place. The only difference in presentation I believe is the lack of sprites and Magical Gohda Chef in the bottles/forgeries.

Just wanted to clarify a seemingly common mistake.
"Arc 1 doesn't have meta"
I suggest you reread arc 1, Battler constantly breaks away from the narration and start talking to "us" - he even introduce each character one by one - how isn't that meta?
And how could that be taken outside of the story? (and how does answering this by splitting hair between obvious meta and subtile meta really solve anything?)

There's also simply too many references to fiction.
When you have Kyrie telling you more or less "you should try to solve this story as a love mystery" and you have the memory of Rudolf saying more or less "witches and the such only exists in fiction", I don't think you can really claim that there's no meta in arc 1.

Also...
"Why should we believe in a human culprit when the story tells us there exist these meta-beings?"
Hmmm what about us then? No matter what the forgeries says or doesn't say, Umineko, in the form we read it, has these meta-beings in it.
Does that makes us unable to chase after a human culprit?
Actually this is probably the central point of this : why do you think the people reading the forgeries would react any differently then we do, if the forgeries are exactly the same thing as what we read? Cause I'd put my money on them reacting like us and chasing after a human culprit no matter what. It also is sorta funny that we only know these are forgeries thanks to the Hachijou/Ange scene in arc 6, which makes references to the meta. So you end up having little choice imo but to accept both or to deny both. If I'm to doubt what was said in that scene about the forgeries, I might as well doubt the forgery concept altogether.
Beside, arc 5 and 6 are pretty devoid of content if you remove the meta.

How could nobody have figured out the depths of the stories with all that meta-information thrown in their face? Especially the red text, which provides a massive limiting factor on available speculation.

"Kanon is dead."

Such helpful red...
Seriously, the games would be easier without the red.

He's smart in a lot of ways, but has too narrow a way of thinking. In particular, he arbitrarily takes a very narrow interpretation of red and bases everything off of it. It's really kind of frustrating to watch him make a flawed assumption from the beginning and build off of it as well as he does, yet stubbornly refuse to reexamine his assumption when the story calls him to.

Just wanted to clarify a seemingly common mistake.
"Arc 1 doesn't have meta"
I suggest you reread arc 1, Battler constantly breaks away from the narration and start talking to "us" - he even introduce each character one by one - how isn't that meta?
And how could that be taken outside of the story? (and how does answering this by splitting hair between obvious meta and subtile meta really solve anything?)

There's also simply too many references to fiction.
When you have Kyrie telling you more or less "you should try to solve this story as a love mystery" and you have the memory of Rudolf saying more or less "witches and the such only exists in fiction", I don't think you can really claim that there's no meta in arc 1.

That isn't meta-narrative. That's narration. Battler narrates in-character. Narrators talk to readers. Huck Finn talked to the readers. Chief Bromden dropped hints to the greater structure of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Arthur Dent knew he couldn't die because he wasn't allowed to until the narrative brought him to a place he'd never been yet. Misery is about an author writing a story. None of that is meta-narrative; it is meta-fiction, to be more precise, but those aspects of the narrative are not meta-narrative in the same sense Umineko's meta-world narrative is progressing.

Meta-narrative in the same sense as Umineko is Animal Man talking to Grant Morrison as he's writing Animal Man and this dialogue being reflected within the work. It's Huck Finn acting like Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer was an existing account in his world talking about events that actually happened for Huck (and not being entirely accurate besides, according to Huck). It's the odd-numbered chapters of If on a winter's night a traveler telling you, the reader, what you're doing between reading the even-numbered ones. It's the footnotes in Pale Fire and House of Leaves continuing the narrative and forming an integral part of it when they're supposed to be commentary on an extant story. It's Rozencrantz and Guildenstern expressing awareness that they exist in a play and structuring how they view their own existence around this point.

This stuff may make sense as a finished work (as each individual Umineko episode generally does, and Umineko does on the whole), but if you ask what the deeper baseline work is you either have to conclude there probably isn't one (e.g. House of Leaves, where Johnny doesn't think the Navidson Record Zampano claims to have seen actually existed), or that it's different from what we, the reader, get as a finished product (e.g. if Johnny Truant "existed" and Zampano's script really existed, the experience of Johnny reading and thinking about it probably differs from the text presented to us as the book House of Leaves). While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the text of any of the individual Umineko episodes simply doesn't exist in the R-Prime universe (if it exists itself), I do think the documents we see are those filtered to us by Ryukishi after piling on every possible layer (including meta-fictional criticism) and fictionalizing the lot of them. By necessity, these are not the ones characters on certain layers read or wrote.

Given this, the sole place where this degree of meta-narrative exists in ep1 is the Tea Party. There is no indication anywhere that Tea Parties are part of the "main bodies" of the works presented. There are some instances in which it seems like they probably should be (for example, Battler's investigation in Alliance). It seems entirely too arbitrary. I don't think certain parts are excluded because of their placement in the story, but I do think certain parts are excluded because they're not intended to be part of the story that was read or written, merely part of the entire creative and deliberative process of authors and readers such as Tohya or Ange.

The point is this: The stories are described in abstract in endscrolls and 1998 scenes as tales of mystery and witchy murder. Including the meta-narrative just doesn't seem to jive with the way the stories are apparently viewed in the future. It does, however, jive with the notion that the meta-narrative is about people thinking about a narrative they're involved in elsewhere. By general necessity, they can't also be contained within that narrative. Well, okay, they could be, but I think Umineko would be a very different work if they were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomAvatarFan

Let's reread those Tea Parties Also, if Bernkastel is of a being of a "higher plane", than it doesn't make sense for any of them to mention her.

She's a major antagonist. Nobody is interested in her at all? We talked about her and her influence over the story all the time, but Witch Hunters appear not to care?

Quote:

Because Author theory. Beatrice on the gameboard/trial is Natsuhi's illusion, but Meta-Beatrice is Yasu's heart.

You don't think it would confuse everyone reading the story in-universe that there are two (or more) Beatrices, one of them dies, and one of them doesn't? Because if I were reading End as a book in a series as presented to me, I would think the author has completely jumped the rails. The contrast between Alliance and End is far too much given the trajectory of the meta-narrative. The matter is cleared up nicely if the meta-narrative isn't in the original works.

Quote:

I'm still working this out. But End and Dawn are Tohya's forgeries. They're making money on it, dramatic effect? Remember who the author is for this. It's Tohya trying to deal with the fragmented memories of Battler, not someone who is merely writing down forgeries for the Witch Hunter's studies. Requiem and Twilight, I'm still not sure, as there is no mention of these ever actually being written. This supports the fact that there may in fact be Kakera stuff happening above the author theory.

It doesn't really support any facts. We don't know what they are. But that's the point; we don't know if any of these reflect their in-universe pen-to-paper existence. To assume that they do may be missing a point of the story.

Quote:

This is a good point, one that I haven't completely thought through. How did they decide? Tohya may have started with the first forgeries, possibly even believed it to be another true message bottle text. The serious Witch Hunters turn to him for their studies. But at the same time, remember that these are supposed to be the memories of someone who was actually there (hidden deep inside them somewhere) I'm still stuck on the Land. But... in EP8, we see Beatrice saying that Land was her bottle. Banquet is Tohya's. Tohya picks up the Meta-Narrative where Yasu left off- or where Yasu was thought to have left off. If Land is found, its Meta-Narrative will differ, but it doesn't matter because it was never found, and Banquet was written for the purpose of picking up where Turn left off.

Except:

That assumes nobody else's forgeries could even debatably be close, which puts excessive importance on the HT forgeries that doesn't seem to have any logical reason except "he sorta kinda barely maybe remembered," which in my mind is hardly necessary to write a good forgery or even to get at what Beatrice wanted.

We know literally nothing about other forgeries except that they were written. So we can't even judge them against the HT forgeries because we don't have them at all (as far as we know).

We have no idea where Land would actually fit into a meta-narrative continuity. Nevermind that this doesn't make any sense from the perspective of message bottles being set adrift; the possibility that any one or any number of them could potentially be lost entirely invalidates the notion that they would be written sequentially. Suppose Land did come third, but we lost everything before it? If none of Legend, Turn, or Land have a sequential meta-narrative, they can stand on their own to some extent. If they don't, things become problematic.

Assuming Land can just be lopped off devalues the importance of Beatrice's intended meta-narrative. It's either part of her overall narrative or it isn't. To not care that much that it was lost suggests it didn't contain anything that was that critical, but if a sequential meta-narrative that builds to a specific point exists, how could it not? Now you can still argue Banquet was an adequate replacement, but it's highly incredible to me that things would just happen to work out like that. Of course, I find it incredible that the message bottles would've been set adrift at all, but that's another matter.

Quote:

I haven't read Our Confession. But is the Beatrice arguing with Battler and creating the game ever said "well, if I make this move, Battler will say..." Oh wait. There's different levels to Meta. If it's just Beatrice setting up the game, then it doesn't matter.

It matters a lot, because Beatrice in that booklet is being heavily equivocated with the author herself. Meta-Beatrice is the author, not merely a character. The booklet is meant, on a technical level, to show this creative process. If Meta-Beatrice is just a character writing about the creation of other characters, it really doesn't matter.

She also seems to distinguish the content of her game (board narrative + magic narrative) from her interactions with her opponent (red truth selection + dialogue) without actually planning it out (i.e. she thinks of what she'll say to Battler, but she doesn't dictate what he'll say back).

Comparing this to the meta-narrative of Dawn we see similar constructions: Meta-Battler designs a board and fantasy narrative and displays scenes he wishes to display, but while he engages with and relates to Meta-Erika, he doesn't dictate the things she says and does. To say "Yes, but there's another authorial layer above him" misses a lot of what the meta-narrative seems to be about, which is - or at least appears to be - getting inside Tohya's thought process, which is otherwise inaccessible to us. Our Confession is doing essentially the same thing for Beatrice.

Quote:

I don't quite understand why you're so focused on what the Witch-Hunters see. As far as I'm concerned, the Witch Hunters probably did study other forgeries. If you want me to give an explanation they chose Tohya's because Tohya continues the story where Yasu left off: the heart of the story. But since even that is a part of Tohya's forgeries...

Again, this makes the implication that no one other than him could possibly write a forgery that gets at the heart of the story. It also makes the assertion outright that the Witch Hunter community even knows what the heart of the story is. Remember, the challenge is to "find the truth," and most Witch Hunters appear to be interested in determining - or merely concluding, according to their own biases and interests - what the true events of Rokkenjima were. That wasn't necessarily what "Beatrice" intended at all, at least with respect to her message to Battler.

It's a false equivalence. As far as we're shown in the stories, the Witch Hunter community is completely barking up the wrong tree. That Tohya's work is famous seems incidental to the fact that he also happens to be closer to the heart of the story, the part only he was ever meant to truly understand anyway. Featherine speaks of the whole notion in almost mystical terms in ep6, and it isn't a very good explanation as to why his work would be considered more authentic than the work of other people.

The meta-narrative, I should point out, is also intensely personal and not really very public in nature. This seems to contrast with how the public at large interprets the story. Painting the meta-narrative as internal self-discovery on Tohya's part just makes more sense generally than the notion that it exists in front of everybody's faces and most of them are just too dumb to notice.

Quote:

It is said outright. That's why I started wondering about this in the first place. The only difference in presentation I believe is the lack of sprites and Magical Gohda Chef in the bottles/forgeries.

How sure are you of what's actually contained in the message bottles? Why didn't any version of Ange ever get to just outright read one? Surely the contents are very easy to find; they'd be all over the internet by 1998. We're rather deliberately told only vague things about what the message bottles actually contain, and their content is kept more or less entirely vague. While I do believe Legend and Turn are most likely the stories contained therein, I'm not 100% positive they are exact mirrors to ep1 and ep2, and in general, I'd argue that the response to them suggests they aren't.

Who said it was? I reread both my post and your post and we only ever both used "meta" and not meta-narrative. Granted I'm extremely tired so I might have missed it...

The simple point of meta is to make you think beyond the limits of the actual story. Breaking the fourth wall is as meta as you can get. If even you agree that there are elements making references to meta "outside of the meta narrative" then I don't see why this is so weird... I mean it's just like the fantasy scenes...
Fantasy scenes were always there, they only became more obvious.
Meta scenes were always there too, they only became more obvious.
In both case it's because without them becoming so fricking obvious, we never would've gotten the point.

Maria's conversations with Battler in arc 1 are almost exactly the same sort of conversation that meta-Battler and meta-Beato has in arc 2. I've said this in my previous post, I don't see how splitting hair is actually making a point. So can you see how arc 2's meta is only taking things that already existed in arc 1 and making them more obvious, or are you going to continue to split hair and see differences instead of connections between things?

So if "the content of the meta-narrative" already existed for the most part in arc 1, I don't see what'd be weird about keeping the meta in arc 2. It'd be quite the opposite. Arc without meta results in a broken arc.

Beside you haven't dealt with my other points. I'd love to understand why you (or anyone really) can doubt that the meta are in the forgeries but believe in the forgeries existing at all, considering the origin of these informations.

Maria talking with Battler is not the same thing as Meta-Battler and Meta-Beatrice interacting. One of these things happens within the context of a narrative which does not suggest actual awareness that a narrative exists (Maria's statements could be read entirely within the extant context of the "board" narrative, though we have no non-board narrative in Legend to speak of). One of them happens outside the context of an existing narrative by characters who not only are aware of the nature of the narrative, but compartmentalize it as something distinct from themselves about which they may interact, discuss, and even treat as sport. That they are characters in a fiction is obvious, because of course Umineko is fiction. That's not the point; the point is that they recognize that there exists a narrative which they are in some fashion responsible for yet not contained within. I think that distinction is clearly meant to be taken as important.

That aside, if the meta is part of the forgeries, then we actually know nothing about the thought processes of the reader, which we were directly told in later episodes we did have. There's really no point in Meta-Ange at all if she exists solely to be an in-fiction character.

I have no idea why you would think they are in the in-universe texts, assuming those texts exist. I grant that the texts might not, but I do not see the rationale behind believing the meta-narrative arc which is otherwise so functionally and thematically distinct from the rest of the narrative is in fact a self-contained part of it. It flies against the obvious rules of construction, the supposed information we have about its origins, and the apparent thematic purposes of the meta-world itself.